The USA is done.

InnocentBoy

Banned
Mar 5, 2006
847
5
18
President Obama signed an Executive Order for “National Defense” yesterday that claims executive authority to seize all US resources and persons, including during peacetime, for self-declared “national defense
So if your driving down the street and someone from the Department of transportation wants to take your car and go dukes of hazard style dirt jumping with it......

There is so much more to this that I am not even going to get into now it's just disgusting.
 

Miss*Bijou

Sexy Troublemaker
Nov 9, 2006
3,137
44
48
Montréal
It's pretty crazy... All of it.

Absolutely no oversight, no accountability, no transparency, no challenge.








Our government’s deliberate and premeditated killing of American terrorism suspects raises profound questions that ought to be the subject of public debate. Unfortunately the Obama administration has released very little information about the practice — its official position is that the targeted killing program is a state secret — and some of the information it has released has been misleading.

The press has reported since early 2010 that Anwar al-Awlaki had been placed on “kill lists” maintained by the CIA and JSOC, and articles have discussed in detail the secret process by which he was placed there. After the killings of the three U.S. citizens last fall, newspapers reported extensive details about the strikes, including how the CIA and JSOC coordinated and the number of drones involved. The Times described a “secret” OLC memo that lays out the Administration’s legal justifications for placing al-Awlaki on the kill lists and killing him. Much of the reporting was based on statements by government officials, albeit officials who were unwilling to be quoted for attribution.

Some officials, including President Obama, have spoken on the record about the program. They have publicly claimed responsibility for killing al-Awlaki, and they have more generally defended the government’s right to kill citizens after a secret non-judicial process.

LINK





The CIA and the U.S. military have used unmanned aerial vehicles known as drones to target and kill “suspected militants” in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Libya. Drone operations have become a hallmark of the Obama administration's "counterterrorism campaign." He ordered the first drone strike of his presidency just 72 hours after he took office.

The United Nations has identified the U.S. as the world's number one user of "targeted killings" largely due to its drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Human rights lawyers also deem the drone strikes as "extrajudicial killings" charging that there is no legal basis for the attacks. Although there is no exact record of CIA drone-inflicted civilian deaths, various independent organizations and human rights activists have put the figure at thousands.

U.S. Drone War

LINK






Fazillah, age 25, lives in Maidan Shar, the central city of Afghanistan's Wardak province. She married about six years ago, and gave birth to a son, Aymal, who just turned five without a father. Fazillah tells her son, Aymal, that his father was killed by an American bomber plane, remote-controlled by computer.

That July, in 2007, Aymal's father was sitting in a garden with four other men. A weaponized drone, what we used to call an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle or UAV, was flying, unseen, overhead, and fired missiles into the garden, killing all five men.

Now Fazillah and Aymal share a small dwelling with the deceased man's mother. According to the tradition, a husband's relatives are responsible to look after a widow with no breadwinner remaining in her immediate family. She and her son have no regular source of bread or income, but Fazillah says that her small family is better off than it might have been: one of the men killed alongside her husband left behind a wife and child but no other living relatives that could provide them with any source of support, at all.

Aymal's grandmother becomes agitated and distraught speaking about her son's death, and that of his four friends. "All of us ask, 'Why?'" she says, raising her voice. "They kill people with computers and they can't tell us why. When we ask why this happened, they say they had doubts, they had suspicions. But they didn't take time to ask 'Who is this person?' or 'Who was that person?' There is no proof, no accountability. Now, there is no reliable person in the home to bring us bread. I am old, and I do not have a peaceful life."

LINK






We are particularly concerned about the expanded involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the targeted killings program. International humanitarian law does not prohibit intelligence agencies from participating in combat operations during armed conflicts. However, parties to an armed conflict have obligations to investigate credible allegations of war crimes and provide redress for victims. Because the US government routinely neither confirms nor denies the CIA’s well-known participation in targeted killings in northern Pakistan and elsewhere, there is no transparency in its operations. In 2009, then-CIA chief Leon Panetta unusually acknowledged the US airstrikes against al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan as being “very effective” because they are “very precise” and “very limited in terms of collateral damage.” However, he also said he would not provide more details, highlighting the government’s unwillingness to divulge information about CIA operations.

The CIA, like all US government agencies, is bound by international human rights and humanitarian law. Unlike the US armed forces, the CIA provides little or no information regarding the training and composition of its drone teams, or the procedures and rules it follows in conducting targeted killings. Nor has the government provided information as to whether the CIA has conducted any investigations into possible international law violations and their outcomes. As a result there is no basis for determining whether the US government is actually meeting its international legal obligations with respect to its targeting operations or providing redress for victims of unlawful attacks. Repeated assertions by senior officials within your administration that all US agencies are operating in compliance with international law – without providing information that would corroborate such claims – are wholly inadequate.

LINK





Under Obama, an emerging global apparatus for drone killing

LINK





<embed src="http://www.npr.org/v2/?i=148000630&m=148021928&t=audio" height="386" wmode="opaque" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" base="http://www.npr.org" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed>
 

InTheBum

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2004
3,084
79
48
President Obama signed an Executive Order for “National Defense” yesterday that claims executive authority to seize all US resources and persons, including during peacetime, for self-declared “national defense
So if your driving down the street and someone from the Department of transportation wants to take your car and go dukes of hazard style dirt jumping with it......

There is so much more to this that I am not even going to get into now it's just disgusting.
Hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm where or where have I heard this story before...let's see...:

Nazi Germany under the leadership of Hitler soon became a dictatorship. A dictatorship requires one person and one party to be in control of a nation and a climate of fear - this was provided by Himmler's SS. Personal freedom disappeared in Nazi Germany.

When Hitler was appointed chancellor on January 30th 1933, it was at the head of a coalition government. It was very clear in his mind that it would not remain this way for long. By the end of March 1933, he had acquired much greater powers than the former leading politicians of the Weimar Republic could ever have foreseen when they supported his appointment as chancellor. The death of President Hindenburg in August 1934, allowed him to combine both chancellor's and president's positions into one when Hitler became the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor.

How did Germany descend so quickly into becoming a dictatorship?

When Hitler was appointed in January 1933, Germany was a democracy. Germany had fair elections; nobody had their right to vote abused; there were numerous political parties you could vote for etc. To pass a law, the Reichstag had to agree to it after a bill went through the normal processes of discussion, arguments etc. Within the Reichstag of January 1933, over 50% of those who held seats were against the Nazi Party. Therefore it would have been very unlikely for Hitler to have got passed into law what he wanted. Many saw Hitler as a fall-guy politician who would have to shoulder to blame if things got worse under his leadership.

Hitler had promised a general election for March 1933. This would have been, in his mind, the perfect opportunity for him to show all politicians who opposed him where the true loyalties lay in the German people. In fact, 1932 had shown Hitler that there was a possibility that support for the Nazis had peaked as their showing in the November 1932 election had shown. Anything other than a huge endorsement of Hitler and the Nazi Party would have been a disaster and a gamble which it is possible that Hitler did not want to take.

One week before the election was due to take place, the Reichstag building burned down. Hitler immediately declared that it was the signal for a communist takeover of the nation. Hitler knew that if he was to convince President Hindenburg to give him emergency powers - as stated in the Weimar Constitution - he had to play on the old president's fear of communism. What better than to convince him that the communists were about to take over the nation by force?
 

InTheBum

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2004
3,084
79
48
President Obama signed an Executive Order for “National Defense” yesterday that claims executive authority to seize all US resources and persons, including during peacetime, for self-declared “national defense
So if your driving down the street and someone from the Department of transportation wants to take your car and go dukes of hazard style dirt jumping with it......

There is so much more to this that I am not even going to get into now it's just disgusting.
People can roll their eyes all they want and think it's no big deal or it needs to be done.

Complete erosion of civil liberties, Trillions missing from Pentagon accounting the day after 911, creating a boogie man to scare everyone into a life a fear, and finally deregulating the banking industry so ponzi scheme after ponzi scheme can be created ...and obviously continue to print money out of thin air, and spend money they don't have...


WAKE THE FUCK UP PEOPLE!
 

InTheBum

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2004
3,084
79
48
The Sheeple............................
 

juniper

New member
Apr 11, 2006
407
2
0
The USA is at war, global war, with Islamic nations and Islamic factions. That's the long and short of it. Obama has finally (almost too late) realized it. In case of war, civil liberties must be suspended. This war was foisted on the USA and on other democratic nations and on a good portion of the people (think Syria) of Islamic nations. No good burying our respective heads and disputing this. Battle is brought to us and our only choice is whether to fight, run or pretend it's not happening.


President Obama signed an Executive Order for “National Defense” yesterday that claims executive authority to seize all US resources and persons, including during peacetime, for self-declared “national defense
So if your driving down the street and someone from the Department of transportation wants to take your car and go dukes of hazard style dirt jumping with it......

There is so much more to this that I am not even going to get into now it's just disgusting.
 

Classic

Active member
Jul 26, 2006
265
25
28
And people mock Ron Paul. He is the only candidate out there from either party who talks about this. Problem with guys like Kucinich is that they still want to maintain the powerful government structure that can be used for any purpose and in time always used for no good.

Nice to see at least six other people who haven't drank the kool aid. Told everyone over the years there is not a dimes worth of difference between Cllinton, Bush, Obama etc. Same goes for Paul Martin, Chretien, Harper etc if one is really honest and objective about it.
 

jnewton

Loitering on PERB
Aug 9, 2010
378
0
0
This isn't particularly well thought out either. Compared with 4 and a half decades of facing existential annihilation by way of a massive exchange of nuclear weapons while facing down the Warsaw Pact this current minor dust up with a few thousand religious fanatics is small potatoes. Yet many of the civil rights currently being curtailed were secured and strengthened by the people in the cold war period.

This is all part of a natural ebb & flow of society, first seeking personal freedoms and liberty in times of plenty and then seeking the security of authoritarianism in uncertain times & then swinging back the other way. You see that in the history of Germany. You see it in the History of Russia. You see it in American history in the rise and fall of McCarthyism. Heck you see that in the history of Renaissance Florence in the time of the Medicis. It is a normal process that is easily discerned in hindsight.
Perhaps so, but as demonstrated with most of your examples, the clarity of hindsight usually requires an effusion of blood, something I'm not keen on experiencing.
 

sevenofnine

Active member
Nov 21, 2008
2,016
9
38
the writing has been on the wall for decades the usa is done,
they will continue in there death throws for decades how ever,

i think the question is \
how far will they drag canada down with them and perhaps how low will they go

and perhaps who will take the stage as world leader, or dominate the world economiclly politically and socially like the usa has done for my life time anyway

canada perhaps china,????
 

Dgodus

Banned
Nov 5, 2011
855
0
0
Here and There
Odd how brash Americans can be about themselves. How long have they been around, how much of that time have they been a major world power (I've read it was ww2 which made them the superpower they are today). Do those even match what the English have accomplished as a civilization, much less even some of the really lengthy ones such as the Romans. Mind you it would be harder to maintain longevity in such a rapidly evolving technological world. Still, it puts things in perspective.
 

ThisEndUp

mort à l'entente
Nice to see at least six other people who haven't drank the kool aid. Told everyone over the years there is not a dimes worth of difference between Cllinton, Bush, Obama etc. Same goes for Paul Martin, Chretien, Harper etc if one is really honest and objective about it.
Agreed, no difference at all, all of them lined up for their turn at the trough
 

kso_wiz

New member
Jan 11, 2009
115
0
0
The US rise to super power status took about 100 years. The previous superpower, Great Britain, fought a multi-front wars (the Napoleonic Wars of which the War of 1812 against the USA was a sideshow) in the early 1800s and won. The American Civil War of the early to mid 1860's showed Britain the size of modern land forces the USA could raise, train and mobilize on the continent. Thus the British promptly agreed to Confederation in Canada, placed the country's defence in the hands of the Canadian militia & loaded all British regiments onto ships to other parts of the empire so that any conquest of Canada by the USA would be a defeat of local militias & not involve the imperial reputation of the British army, requiring them to intervene in our defence..

The First and Second World Wars saw the USA staying neutral so long as the they were able to be paid by the countries fighting in the war for merchandise and supplies. Once everyone was broke, and given the right provocation, they entered each war, paying for it largely from the money taken by trade early in the conflicts. Britain was economically bled dry twice in first half of the 29th Century & slipped behind the USA.

Of course, just as the USA rose to grasp the supreme position, the USSR was there too. The 35 year struggle for dominance (the Cold War) ended in 1989 with the bankruptcy of the USSR and the near bankruptcy of the USA. The USA has had little time to 'enjoy' supreme superpower status because they had little wealth left & new challengers were already on the rise. The question is will they reach a negotiated arrangement for graceful passing of the mantel to China as Great Britain managed to do with the USA or will we have the modern equivalent of the Napoleonic Wars.
Very interesting. Think the horse is already out of the barn regarding China. The baton was passed to China in the name of cheap goods for US consumers (and more to the point) as well as fat bonuses for businessmen, politicians, and investors. It will be very interesting to see how the world (and Canada) view US hegemony after they've had a taste of China's for a while. I think I hope I live to see it.

I claim no wealth of military knowledge, but I wonder if Britain had the strength the US has. Don't forget the the air-force. Britain could exhibit strength with their navy, but my guess is they did not have much of a land reach. The US has a better army (mechanized land units allow greater reach), plus the air-force. So, I think the US has had greater reach and supportability then any hegemony anywhere thru history. Has also shown restraint in some large cases, and complete lack or restraint in others.
 

InTheBum

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2004
3,084
79
48
USA is going down...the only question is, when will "they" pull the plug?
 

Lancaster

Member
Oct 10, 2010
73
0
6
Very interesting. Think the horse is already out of the barn regarding China. The baton was passed to China in the name of cheap goods for US consumers (and more to the point) as well as fat bonuses for businessmen, politicians, and investors. It will be very interesting to see how the world (and Canada) view US hegemony after they've had a taste of China's for a while. I think I hope I live to see it.

I claim no wealth of military knowledge, but I wonder if Britain had the strength the US has. Don't forget the the air-force. Britain could exhibit strength with their navy, but my guess is they did not have much of a land reach. The US has a better army (mechanized land units allow greater reach), plus the air-force. So, I think the US has had greater reach and supportability then any hegemony anywhere thru history. Has also shown restraint in some large cases, and complete lack or restraint in others.
In a conventional war, the US will still mop the floor with China 100 times out of 100. The Chinese may be improving by leaps and bounds, but they're still about 20 years behind the US. Everything "new" the Chinese have are replica of whatever the Russians or Americans had for a while, meaning their quality are pretty substandard. The US can land a quarter million troops practically anywhere in the world within a few weeks, thus they have huge projection of power. The Chinese and Russians can only sabre-rattle against neighbouring countries only. Having a million plus soldiers are fine and dandy, but if they're using "Made-in-China" hardware and can only travel by foot (figuratively), they're not that scary in the grand scheme of things. Plus considering the US soldiers are actually battle-hardened, whereas the Chinese are still untested. Soldiers from WW1 lead the forces in WW2, those veterans fought in Korea and eventually taught/trained those who went into Vietnam, which in turn paved the way for Desert Storm, and those guys are in charge of Afghanistan and Iraq. China, on the other hand, haven't fought in a major war since Korea.

Of course, the greatest unknown factors that the Chinese have over the US is their missile technology and their focus on electronic warfare. Having advance missiles can potentially neutralize the aircraft carrier, the main backbone of the US global presence. As for electronic warfare, losing valuable intel and industrial sabotage can easily ruin things.
 

Ray

Well-known member
Dec 21, 2005
1,233
307
83
vancouver
In a conventional war, the US will still mop the floor with China 100 times out of 100.
'Never get involved into a land war in Asia': Dwight Eisenhower.

The US got into a quagmire in Korea, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan. In each of these cases, on paper, it should have been a cakewalk. China is 10 times bigger than those 3 countries put together, and far better armed.
I do not believe the US will 'mop the floor' with China. The US will be a bankrupt 3rd world country very shortly after the first military engagement between the 2.
 

doctorkoma

New member
Dec 28, 2009
54
0
0
74
Van Isle
the rich dont give a shit about anybody in the middle class or below. Have you heard about the marina Peter Munk is building in Montenegro for 400 ft Plus yaughts.
Sounds like agood place to bomb
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,653
828
113
In a conventional war, the US will still mop the floor with China 100 times out of 100. The Chinese may be improving by leaps and bounds, but they're still about 20 years behind the US. Everything "new" the Chinese have are replica of whatever the Russians or Americans had for a while, meaning their quality are pretty substandard. The US can land a quarter million troops practically anywhere in the world within a few weeks, thus they have huge projection of power. The Chinese and Russians can only sabre-rattle against neighbouring countries only. Having a million plus soldiers are fine and dandy, but if they're using "Made-in-China" hardware and can only travel by foot (figuratively), they're not that scary in the grand scheme of things. Plus considering the US soldiers are actually battle-hardened, whereas the Chinese are still untested. Soldiers from WW1 lead the forces in WW2, those veterans fought in Korea and eventually taught/trained those who went into Vietnam, which in turn paved the way for Desert Storm, and those guys are in charge of Afghanistan and Iraq. China, on the other hand, haven't fought in a major war since Korea.

Of course, the greatest unknown factors that the Chinese have over the US is their missile technology and their focus on electronic warfare. Having advance missiles can potentially neutralize the aircraft carrier, the main backbone of the US global presence. As for electronic warfare, losing valuable intel and industrial sabotage can easily ruin things.
Ya right, ever the optimist. So the U.S. can land 250,000 troops practically anywhere in the world in a few weeks. I'll give you that, provided they can muster that many combat ready troops in that time frame. What do they do when they get there ? In that kind of time frame they'll have the clothes on their backs, their basic weapons and MRE's. If they happen to be in China when this happens, the million plus soldiers waiting for them will chew them up, spit them out and be producing new weapons out of whatever scrap metal is left from the few heavy weapons they would have managed to get in.
 

Lancaster

Member
Oct 10, 2010
73
0
6
'Never get involved into a land war in Asia': Dwight Eisenhower.

The US got into a quagmire in Korea, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan. In each of these cases, on paper, it should have been a cakewalk. China is 10 times bigger than those 3 countries put together, and far better armed.
I do not believe the US will 'mop the floor' with China. The US will be a bankrupt 3rd world country very shortly after the first military engagement between the 2.
Ya right, ever the optimist. So the U.S. can land 250,000 troops practically anywhere in the world in a few weeks. I'll give you that, provided they can muster that many combat ready troops in that time frame. What do they do when they get there ? In that kind of time frame they'll have the clothes on their backs, their basic weapons and MRE's. If they happen to be in China when this happens, the million plus soldiers waiting for them will chew them up, spit them out and be producing new weapons out of whatever scrap metal is left from the few heavy weapons they would have managed to get in.
Well, I mean a no-holds bar hypothetical war where it's just armed forced of China vs armed forces of USA meeting in the middle of nowhere.

In any case, Vietnam/Korea/Afghanistan did/is still just taking up just a small fraction of the overall US firepower.
 
Ashley Madison
Vancouver Escorts